Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years, 7 months ago
    Wow! Ted does not like repeat offenders--he likes dead offenders! He has the right idea especially about child molesters too.
    As for all this of late touchy feelie chemical crap squabble going on about lethal injections, a single bullet to the head is my idea of an inexpensive and humane for a quick execution.
    Bang! Bury! Bye!
    And, yes, I agree that is not what some sadistic scum really deserve. Just talking quality control low-cost efficiency here.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 9 years, 7 months ago
      I think hanging works well. In the open for the public to see, as it used to be. That's a great deterrent.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by flanap 9 years, 7 months ago
        Possibly a deterrent, but that isn't why it is right (the death penalty that is).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by flanap 9 years, 7 months ago
          I appears there may be confusion as to what I meant here.

          I meant that the death penalty is RIGHT, but not because it is a deterrent.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years, 7 months ago
          I would listen family of someone who was tortured and murdered why the death penalty is right.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 7 months ago
            We should not make decisions based on emotion or talking to people who are emotionally distressed.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 7 months ago
              The right to defend your life, or your child's life is not an emotion... It's a RIGHT.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by flanap 9 years, 7 months ago
                I think that the discussion of "rights" is misleading. Often today rights are understood as something given by the state; this is dangerous because that which is given by a manmade entity can also be rescinded. I would simply state that I MAY defend my life, if I so choose. Rights have nothing to do with it. Rights, frankly, are only that which the state should give you or not, depending on appropriated judicial principles and social conduct beneficial to individuals. For instance, means of transportation and laws ruling the conduct thereof, etc.... Concerning individual freedoms, rights do not come into play.

                This is the lie the state has foisted upon a beguiled and inept public who is more interested in entertainment than the ability to think. Even the Founding Fathers knew that certain rights had to be spelled out because there would be folks who would need to have them written down somewhere so they would not be forgotten; however, these "rights" are not given, they simple exist, regardless of the state. The state forgets, so easily and conveniently, that it exists because individuals allow it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 7 months ago
                Is it the state's right to kill criminals or people's right to live in a state empowered to kill criminals?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 7 months ago
                  It is MY right to defend my life. The State has nothing to do with it.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 7 months ago
                    "It is MY right to defend my life. The State has nothing to do with it."
                    Absolutely. I was responding only to the comment about the death penalty, not someone using potentially lethal force to defend himself or others.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 7 months ago
                      I wasn't referring to the death penalty... different topic.
                      But.. as a child I had a close friend who was murdered while fishing with his cousin. Both were murdered by a creep just released from prison. Do you think I believe in the death penalty?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by xthinker88 9 years, 7 months ago
                      Actually I think it was Thomas Hobbes that argued that the right to self-defense is so fundamental that it doesn't disappear in the face of a just conviction for a capital crime. In other words, even if you murder somebody and are found guilty and put on death row, the state should expect you to try to escape or to defend your life when its representatives come to take it. And that you have the right to do so.

                      Now THAT's an extreme view of the right of self defense.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 7 months ago
                  It is not a right. It is the rule of law. There MUST be a penalty affixed to the abridgement of law or the law means nothing. And the penalty must be appropriate to the offense both to provide a deterrent but also to act as a tool of reformation and to protect from further abrogation.

                  The argument presented by murder and its punishment is what the appropriate penalty is. The act is very clear - it is the violation of the most primal, basic right of another - the right to life. In my opinion, the punishment for pre-meditated murder should be the forfeiture of life of the murderer. The state only carries out the punishment agreed upon by its empowerment: it is an agent - not an arbiter. That is what some people get confused. They view the law as the originator of punishment, rather than the agent. If we accept natural law, we accept that the punishment is affixed independently of the agent, but that it exists nonetheless.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 9 years, 7 months ago
    You have got to love Terrible Ted. I have been a fan of his since I first saw him in concert in 1977. I know that dates me but I am not afraid of saying I am a product of the 50's and proud of being a baby boomer. Just wish I had been born earlier and got to enjoy more of the good times instead of the BS that we are currently dealing with. But enough of that, Ted hit it out of the park and I am glad he is voicing his opinion even if the lefties label him a kook, I love that he is standing up.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnmahler 9 years, 7 months ago
    In line with Uncle Ted, anyone who exhibits the sentiments of the num-nuts left probably derives from the LBJ administration; the presidency which swung the national rudder LEFT and put the uninformed present day electorate on track to vote for the fifth column Jihadist in the White House. This conclusion also comes from 57 year old NFL line backer Garry Cobb.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/09/lbj-destroyed-african-american-families-former-nfl-player-reveals-what-led-him-to-the-gop/ Our Constitutional republic has been under assault all of its life and now lies shredded at the feet of the most morally derelict population imaginable from the POV Alexis de Tocqueville. It was the 'Great Society' of President Lyndon B. Johnson and the bestowing of government largesse which has snowballed into today's 'give away' sacred cow society replete with 'liar's loans', welfare fraud, Viagra for prisoners, abortion on demand, pornographic sex education in our public schools, First and Second Amendment violations, and the eggregious Affordable Care Act coupled with the Patriot Act in an era of Agency government, end running the Constitution and Congress. Convincing enough to join us is America's LAST hope.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/09/lbj-destroyed-african-american-families-former-nfl-player-reveals-what-led-him-to-the-gop/
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by flanap 9 years, 7 months ago
    I live in a state where the CHL is available. People ask me if I have mine. I tell them "why do I need to have the state tell me I can defend myself with whatever means necessary to neutralize a viable (overt or covert) threat to my or my family's liberty?" I didn't need Ted Nugent to say it because I understand fundamental Truth from God's Word, the Bible.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jconne 9 years, 7 months ago
    On the death penalty I have only one concern - how often are people wrongly convicted? I like the phrasing "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

    But look at the judgement of the average voter? Do you trust their uncorrectable evaluation of fact and ambiguity.

    Just consider people with competing religious certainty. All the need is some objective ethical standards that are a science rather than a mystical certainty like in the crusades, inquisition and now Islamic totalitarianism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 7 months ago
      It is pretty doggone hard to get a conviction for first degree murder, because you have to prove motive, opportunity, and action. Motive is the key. And let's not forget that it precludes "heat-of-the-moment" items, which are second-degree murder.

      And serving on a jury is WAY harder than voting. remember that a jury decision has to be unanimous. That means twelve "angry men" (pardon to Henry Fonda) from various walks of life all have to agree. And I absolutely object to the idea that we can't execute 99 guilty people because we might get 1 who is innocent. That's the sort of mentality that liberals use to crowd the prisons and petition for emotional pleas.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by tdechaine 9 years, 7 months ago
    I agree with the need to defend oneself and the means to do so; but one still has to obey the laws in the process - he goes beyond defending rights.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago
      A law that is not Constitutional is a nullity. Thus any law that portends to eliminate or restrict any human's natural right to self defense and the means necessary for that right is null and void.

      The sooner we all learn that and apply it in our lives, the sooner we all live in a safer world.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 7 months ago
      But that's the point. What if the law says you can't defend yourself?? How did he go beyond defending rights?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -3
        Posted by tdechaine 9 years, 7 months ago
        He simply is willing to initiate force where it is unnecessary.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 9 years, 7 months ago
          Within the context of 2 nd Amendment Rights if I had a gun and caught someone sexually abusing my child, attempting to kidnap, violent assault -I shoot to kill . Things are happening quickly, a quick objective decision is made. I don 't know what weapons the have, if in a rage, can they harm me as well as whomever they are assaulting? That is self defense. In those situations you aren 't given time to mull over lots of least harm options.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 7 months ago
          Not intiate it. To defend himself against it. What are you talking about? He said nothing of being in favor of initiating force.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -4
            Posted by tdechaine 9 years, 7 months ago
            Murdering someone who molests a child is not a right, is overkill (no pun intended), is initiation and is not truly self-defense.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago
              Molesting a child psychologically alters a child for life. Many adult molesters are in fact victims of child molestation. Killing that molester seems entirely appropriate since he has murdered that child's normal future.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 7 months ago
              An adult who is abusing a child IS initiating force, abusing their power to do harm to a child. I have just as much of a right to defend myself against initiated harm to myself by another as I do to defend my child from the same, that's my job as a parent. To protect my children. That is not 'murder', it's defending an innocent life from a predator. Are you defending a child molester's right to molest with no possibility of parental interference? Who exactly are you trying to defend here? If walked in on someone doing the unspeakable to your child what would you do? (If you don't have children, don't even attempt to answer that.)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 7 months ago
              I would recommend that you spend a couple of weeks in family courts watching the slow parade of abusers and abused and review your attempts to rationalize this. Abuse lasts a lifetime and should not be condoned to any degree - least of all sexual abuse.

              If I caught anyone abusing any of my kids, my 1911 would have words with that individual right there, right then.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by tdechaine 9 years, 7 months ago
                Kill him and go to jail - your choice.
                Or think rationally and just do optimal harm.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 7 months ago
                  "Optimal" is a subjective term. It is an argument of degrees. We can both be right and both be wrong.

                  I view murder (pre-meditated) to be an act worthy of capital punishment because it takes a life and all of its productivity away from family and society. Such acts inflict extreme emotional duress even on the survivors - for the rest of their lives. Murder hurts more than just the one murdered, and so can not be tolerated in a society which values life.

                  In my view, sexual abuse is nearly as bad, only the victim is still alive to deal with their ordeal. It will still haunt them for their entire lives - even with good counseling. And it will affect anyone who has a relationship with that person - especially a spouse or children. That person's offspring will be affected, poisoning the well so to speak for all of society. An act with such a long-lasting and broad reaching effect can not be handled so casually as you imply without risking the debasement and devaluation of quality of life itself - second only to life. How is one supposed to pursue happiness in life with such a spectre hanging over them?

                  No. In my opinion, the damage is worthy of capital punishment - even from my Christian perspective. For an Objectivist, this should be even more clear-cut.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by tdechaine 9 years, 7 months ago
                    you're making my case. Why be accused of something that warrents capital punishment? And why jeopardize the life of your child further by her not having a dad around?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 7 months ago
                      I don't follow. Are you attempting to say that killing a sexual predator while in the act is equivalent to murder? No competent district attorney is going to press for a conviction based on that because at the very minimum it fails the premeditation test. At most you're going to have to prove extenuating circumstances just to get a manslaughter charge.

                      I would also point out that your advocacy of "optimal harm" is a severe legal liability, because it is an admission that you looked past the offense to apply your own standard of retribution upon the perpetrator. You are then making a calculated judgement - premeditation - on just how much damage you should inflict on them. If I was a prosecuting attorney, this is motive and premeditation for intentional harm. At a minimum I could get you for battery, and I could even go so far as to argue that it would constitute torture because you are inflicting pain with the intent to make them suffer. Yes, you are going to have mitigating circumstances, but legally and morally, the course of action you propose is far more fraught with legal peril.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by tdechaine 9 years, 7 months ago
                        Certainnly no more premeditation than with murder. Interesting argument, but it sounds a bit rationaliistic. I would rather not take the chance of being accused of murder and doing something less that will still stop the abuse.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 7 months ago
                          But that is the whole point: defense of someone is not and can never be morally equivalent to murder. If that were not so, soldiers and law enforcement officers could be prosecuted for murder in the line of their duties. There is no moral, legal or rational equivalence between murder and self-defense - even if it is the defense of others. One is proactive, the other reactive.

                          I would support complete castration also as a penalty, just so you know.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by tdechaine 9 years, 7 months ago
                            Moral equiv. does not always translate to a rational jury verdict; you still go to jail, I don't, and - in either case - the abuser is stopped.
                            In principle, we agree.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 7 months ago
                              Not really. The only principle we have agreed on is that there must be a punishment attached to crime and that sexual abuse constitutes a crime. We differ significantly on the approach to what constitutes a justifiable penalty for this particular abrogation of the law in which I will term informal prosecution (caught in the act) and formal prosecution (jury verdict). But as I said before, it's a matter of degrees on which we will both be right and we will both be wrong.

                              I think the one thing we will agree on is the hope neither of us or our loved ones is put in the situation. I for one would rather this remain a hypothetical situation.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by jconne 9 years, 7 months ago
    Half right Ted Nugent...

    Yes on right to defend oneself. Well said.

    No on blowing the brains out if someone you think is doing harm where it can be simply stopped and handled through those charged with objectively determining fact and applying retaliatory force. That is not an act of self defense.

    The police and courts are the appropriate way to avoid arbitrary and subjective abuse of others. Contrast that with resorting to dueling where the outcome had nothing to do with the merits of the conflicting positions. Is that what Nugent wants?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo